Ezra Booth, a former Methodist minister, he converted to Mormonism in 1831 after witnessing a miraculous healing performed by Joseph Smith. Booth initially found the Mormon message very compelling, especially the promise of spiritual gifts and the imminent establishment of the New Jerusalem. But as months passed, Booth found the gap between expectation and result to widen, as in his mind the spiritual gifts did not come in the manner he hoped and the site of the New Jerusalem in Missouri (see D&C 57) was not the land of milk and honey he envisioned (as described in D&C 38:18). He also didn’t like the June 1831 (D&C 52) commandment to walk to Missouri for the dedication of the temple site, or the August 1831 commandment to walk back to Ohio (D&C 60), preaching along the way (at 800 miles one way, I wonder how many people actually liked the thought of that), and he became increasingly critical of JS and other Mormon leaders. In early September, the church conference silenced Booth from preaching, and over the next few months he published a series of letters in the local newspaper, the Ohio Star.
While the tone of the letters is harsh, I think they provide an interesting window into how the church functioned in 1831 (at least in Booth’s eyes), in particular the cultural function of JS’s revelations in the Mormon community, or as they were more frequently referred to, commandments. In this regard, the letters are particularly interesting because he’s writing when few of the commandments had been printed, and therefore provides insights into pre-Book of Commandments/Doctrine and Covenants Mormonism. Booth comments on the tension between the divine nature of the commandments and the democratic impulse to sustain them, the relationship between JS as the community’s primary revelator and his desire to have all people be prophets (here Booth has the tendency to portray JS as a tyrant, while downplaying JS’s efforts to simultaneously encourage all to receive revelation and maintain some semblance of order), the uneasy tension between the ancient revealed word (the Bible) and the modern revealed word (the commandments), and the relationship between oral and written commandments. The letters contain several references to the commandments, but there are two extended commentaries that I’ll reproduce here.[1]
As the Mormonite church depends principally upon the commandments, and as most of them are concealed from the world, it will be necessary to make some statement respecting them. These commandments come from Smith, at such times and on such occasions as he feels disposed to speak, and Rigdon or Cowdery to write them. Their exact number I have never taken pains to ascertain. I have the “27th commandment to Emma my daughter in Zion;” and should presume there are betwixt fifty and a hundred. — They received the addition of five or six while in Missouri; and these are considered a miracle in themselves, sufficient to convince any rational mind. But none but the strong in faith are permitted to witness their origin. I had an opportunity of seeing this wonderful exhibition of the wisdom and power of God, at three different times; and I must say, that it bore striking marks of human weakness and wickedness. They are received in the church as divinely inspired, and the name of the Lord is substituted for that of Smith. They are called “The Commandments of the Lord,” They are considered “The mysteries of the Kingdom;” and to divulge them to the world, is the same as casting pearls before swine. When they and the Scriptures are at variance, the Scriptures are wrongly translated; and Smith, though totally ignorant of the original, being a translator or an alterator, can easily harmonize them. Every thing in the church is done by commandment: and yet it is said to be done by the voice of the church. For instance, Smith gets a commandment that he shall be the “head of the church,” or that he “shall rule the Conference,” or that the Church shall build him an elegant house, and give him 1000 dollars. For this the members of the church must vote, or they will be cast off for revelling against the commandments of the Lord. In addition to the Book of Mormon, and the commandments, there are revelations which are not written. — In this department, though Smith is the principal, yet there are others who profess to receive revelations; but after all, Smith is to decide whether they come from the Lord or the devil. Some have been so unfortunate as to have their revelations palmed off upon the latter. These revelations entirely supercede the Bible, and in fact, the Bible is declared too defective to be trusted, in its present form; and it is designed that it shall undergo a thorough alteration, or as they say, translation. This work is now in operation. The Gospel of St. Matthew has already received the purifying touch, and is prepared for the use of the church. It was intended to have kept this work a profound secret, and strict commandments were given for that purpose; and even the salvation of the church was said to depend upon it. The secret is divulged, but the penalty is not as yet inflicted. — Their revelations are said to be an addition to the Bible. — But instead of being an addition, they destroy its use; for everything which need be known, whether present, past or future, they can learn from Smith, for he has declared to the church, that he “knows all things that will take place from this time to the end of the world.” If then, placing the Bible under circumstances which render it entirely useless, is infidelity, Mormonism is infidelity. (Booth, Letter II)
. . . .
There are also some other things the meaning of which you will not be likely to apprehend, without some explanation. In this [D&C 43], as well as several of the commandments, it is clearly and explicitly stated, that the right of delivering written commandments, and revelations, belong exclusively to Smith, and no other person can interfere, without being guilty of sacrilege. In this office he is to stand, until another is appointed in his place , and no other can be appointed in his stead, unless he falls through transgression; and in such a case, he himself is authorized to appoint his successor. But how is he to be detected, should he become guilty of transgression. The commandment makes provision for this. His guilt will become manifest by his inability to utter more revelations, and should he presume “to get another man’s wife,” and commit adultery; and “by the shedding of blood, seek to kill her husband,” if he retain the use of his tongue, so as to be able to utter his jargon, he can continue as long as he pleases in the bed of adultery, and wrap himself with garments stained with blood, shed by his own hands, and still retain the spotless innocence of the holiest among mortals; and must be continued in the office of revelator, and head of the church. Some others, and especially Cowdery, have earnestly desired to relieve Smith of some part of his burden [see especially D&C 6-9 and Cowdery’s “Articles of the Church of Christ]. Cowdery’s desires for this work were so keen and excessive, as, to use his own language, “it was unto me a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forebearing, and I could forbear no longer;” and he did in fact, issue some productions, which he said bore the divine impress; but Smith fixed upon them the stamp of devilish. But it seems, in order to compromise the matter, that Cowdery was permitted to “speak or to teach, at all times, by way of commandment unto the church; but not to write them by way of commandment:” [D&C 28:4] thus Cowdery is authorized to give verbal commandments to the church by the inspiration of the spirit, which, if he afterwards writes, ceases to be inspiration; therefore, a commandment delivered orally, may be divinely inspired; but the same communicated, written verbatim, so far loses its former character, that it degenerates into a prediction of an infernal stamp. Here is the mystery, for aught I know, peculiar to Mormonism; and none but Mormonites, I presume, will attempt to unravel it. But it finds its parallel in the following: Smith asures his followers, that what he speaks by the spirit, and is written, is infallible in operation. But if it is not written, he may sometimes be mistaken. — He tells them that the right to deliver written revelations, belongs exclusively to himself, and no other person shall interfer in the business; and if he transgresses he will graciously condescend to appoint another in his stead, and the only proof produced for the support of such assertions, is barely his word, upon which they implicitly rely, and because entirely resigned to place their person and property under his control, and even risk the salvation of their souls upon his say-so. Such glaring duplicity on the one hand, and unaccountable credulity on the other, seldom have a parallel in the annals of men. Never was there a despot more jealous of his prerogative than Smith; and never was a fortress guarded with more vigilance and ardor against every invading foe, than he guards these. Smith apprehended a rival in the department of written inspiration, from another quarter, and hence Cowdery was commissioned to commence an attack and suppress the enemy, before he had acquired sufficient stability and strength so as to become formidable. “Thou shalt take thy brother Hiram, between him and thee alone, and tell him that the things he hath written from that stone, &c.” [D&C 28:11] Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses, and also one of the “money diggers,” found a smooth stone, upon which there appeared to be a writing, which when transcribed upon paper, disappeared from the stone, and another impression appeared in it place. This when copied, vanished, and so it continued, alternately appearing and disappearing; in the meanwhile, he continued to write, until he had written over considerable paper. It bore striking marks of a Mormonite revelation, and was received as an authentic document by most of the Mormonites, till Smith, by his superior sagacity, discovered it to be a Satanic fraud. A female professing to be a prophetess, made her appearance in Kirtland, and so ingratiated herself into the esteem and favor of some of the Elders, that they received her, as a person commissioned to act a conspicuous part in Mormonizing the world [D&C 43]. Rigdon, and some others, gave her the right hand of fellowship, and literally saluted her with what they called the kiss of charity. But Smith, viewing her as an encroachment upon his sacred premises, declared her an impostor, and she returned to the place from whence she came. Her visit, however, made a deep impression on the minds of many, and the barbed arrow which she left in the hearts of some, is not yet eradicated. (Booth, Letter VIII)
________
[1] The letters were later reproduced in E.D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed, and are widely available on the internet.
I like Robin Jensen’s integration of this material in his thesis. Good stuff, David.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 16, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
Thank you David,
I agree that these letters raise interesting questions, not only about 1831, but even about modern ways that revelation is thought of and described. What particularly caught my attention on first read are statements such as:
“as most of them are concealed from the world”
“to divulge them to the world, is the same as casting pearls before swine”
“here are revelations which are not written”
“It was intended to have kept this work a profound secret, and strict commandments were given for that purpose”
“But if it is not written, he may sometimes be mistaken.”
Do you think there is any sort of connection between what Booth appears to have been saying and Joseph’s/the Lord’s decision to publish the Book of Commandments? If so, has anyone presented these events in this way?
Comment by MormonDeadhead — November 16, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
Thanks David. This is great stuff.
MormonDeadhead: At the most recent MHA conference, I presented a paper that explored much of how the revelation texts were limited to certain individuals until JS opened it up with the publication of the BoC. In addition, I explored the attempt of JS to open up the revelatory process to his followers, only to then restrict that process. I hope to revise it and publish it soon.
Comment by Robin Jensen — November 16, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Sounds interesting Robin. I’ll be sure to watch for it.
Comment by MormonDeadhead — November 16, 2010 @ 10:18 pm
Booth’s letters are very important. As you know, Staker spends a little time with the letters, I think he does a good job fleshing out Booth’s ideas along with Rydder. (Couldn’t resist.)
Comment by WVS — November 16, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Thanks, J. I also like Robin’s use of this material. I think it dovetails nicely with his thesis. I haven’t looked at Marquardt’s 2008 JWHA article on Booth’s letters, but I imagine he’s got some good stuff there. If anyone has a pdf they’d be willing to share with me, I’d appreciate it.
Robin, thanks for the update on your manuscript. Get it in print soon!
Thanks, WVS. Staker does have a lot of good info on Booth.
MDH: There’s a lot to mull over in these letters. As for a connection between Booth’s critique of the commandments and the decision to publish them, it’s hard to say with certainty. It’s unclear when they decided to publish the revelations, but I find it hard to believe that JS and others did not have Booth’s critique in mind when they started making preparations to publish the revelations in the November conference. D&C 71, given on December 1, 1831, commanded JS and SR to debate publicly “their enemies,” presumably Booth, so he’s on their minds. One thing is certain: rather than responding to Booth’s critique by keeping the commandments hidden, thereby limiting public scrutiny, JS made them far more readily available by printing them. Granted, he and the Literary Firm altered many of the texts before printing them, but they kept the manuscript books that now allow us to reconstruct who made the changes and more or less when.
Comment by David G. — November 16, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Thanks for this, David. Booth’s letters are of the upmost importance in understanding early (and I mean early Mormonism. I remember Grant Underwood mentioning how the more he gets into the details, the more Booth’s historical points are validated. Plus, given Booth’s disillusionment with the Church at such a young moment, it shows how dramatic some of the shifts were within Mormonism even within the first few years.
I am especially interested in how Booth navigates the issues of religious democracy and prophetic tyranny. It seems Booth is saying that though Mormonism presents itself as a democratic religion, focusing on the “voice of the people,” he felt it only superficially so. Robin’s work on this will be absolutely critical. I think closer readings like this will help nuance the sometimes simplistic theses presented by respected scholars like Hatch that Mormonism is the quintessential democratic religion.
Great intro and excerpts, David.
Comment by Ben — November 17, 2010 @ 5:18 am
This is very interesting. I think it points out several current issues too. As people lately seem to scramble to distinguish as to what are actual revelations from what are mere opinions from leaders yielding sometimes sharp debates. Or what is no longer valid (like the “we no longer teach that” litmus test). It seems like this is an ongoing issue that has not quite been resolved yet.
Comment by Manuel — November 17, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
Great post, David. Not to threadjack too much, but I’ve done a bit of research into Booth’s Methodist background and that of his correspondent, Ira Eddy. Booth’s departure from Methodism to Mormonism and subsequent return to Methodism came at a particularly interesting time in Methodist history, esp. in the conference which Eddy presided over and in which Booth preached.
I’ve considered combining it with my research on James Covel [Covill] and turning it into an article, but that’s on the backburner for now.
Comment by Christopher — November 18, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
Cool, Chris. I hope to see that soon.
Comment by David G. — November 18, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
In fairness to Hatch, he wasn’t saying that Mormonism (or Methodism) operated democratically but only that they “came from the people.”
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 18, 2010 @ 11:43 pm